Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
SFGTV 54
SFGTV2 27
WRC (NBC) 3
CSPAN 2
LANGUAGE
English 86
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 86 (some duplicates have been removed)
on to a boundary issue from the survey that is not affected by that permit. the bottom line is that mr. sanchez says that these are not issued that can be addressed here, they are preexisting issues that go back 50 to 100 years and there will be away to discuss those issues but they don't support holding up this project which they have been able to do since december fifth by filing a general appeal, in fact it is really a two paragraph preliminary statement of appeal that never mentions any detail about the roof expansion permit. they never filed a subsequent brief. they just have a general statement about bad actions that they want to attribute to the permit holder, but now we are here and having the hearing and they cannot identify any concern about that permit. since last week we have been providing plans that they want and worked with mr. sanchez from planning and from what i hear and understand, the revised plans they did bring it down while on the roof deck a bit so that they could be code compliant and the only issue that i am hearing is that there is this ten day notice requirement that
heard mr. sanchez, planning are interested. >> so from your staff? >> i didn't see it, if i could get a look at it, let me see. >> okay. >> it is hard to tell. there is no... it is like n/a and an initial but not an initial, it is hard to cell. >> it looks like a cl. >> we have seen that before, it should be a little clear are to be honest with you it is better. but it is no on the writing that it went to planning at all. >> yeah, probably is someone from building. there is nothing in our... when you come in for a permit you have existing office and proposed office and tenant improvement that does the trigger planning department from a building department point of view, you know? if someone went the same day they applied. >> office for office it does not figure for us >> there have been allocations of commencing work on the permit before the permit was issued in the photographs were shown to us. i mean, i don't know if those were authentic. but from based on what we saw it did appear that a significant amount of work was done in would be short time period. >> right. we have had this b
from the zoning administrator now. and mr. sanchez when you get up there, perhaps you could reconstruct the microphone if you don't mind. before you begin? >> thank you. >> you are very careful. >> thank you. >> scott sanchez planning department. so, the four permits that are on appeal before the board this evening none of those were routed to the planning department. of course the electrical and plumbing but the building permit should have been because there is a change of use from a personal service use which would have been the last use the educational use, and the educational after school use excel to the proposed use of vocal point and in reviewing the matter, we did find that the proposed use of vocal point does not comply with the definition of financial service in the planning code. it is i believe a business or professional service use. which is not listed among the uses that is considered to be an act of commercial use. and let me back up. , the property, 2395-26th avenue is located at the end of 26th avenue and the unit is 1600, and there are a couple of storefronts and it is
forward. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. first i apologize to the board that we're bringing to you something that is so confusing that has gotten to a point it can be so confusing. i had requested the approved plans from the permit holder in december. i did not receive them until monday. i had sent an email in december. i received a response back saying they were working with the neighbors and they would give an update. we never received it. i clearly should have followed up. i take responsibility for that and unfortunately i coming into this week and trying to understand the issues with the permits and there are issues with these permits and so i think i had more time to review this i would have been suspending the permits before they got to this point because there are issues with the permits, not the entirety of the work, not every bit of work on the permits has a problem, but there are parts of each permit that are problematic. the excavation that was done for the garage and one of the problems here this is an inertive process. you have the fir
. >> okay. >> i think that we should hear from mr. sanchez as well. >> yes tha, is okay. >> mr. sanchez, were you involved in this? >> yes, thank you. >> thank you. >> planning department, as last week, the board graciously continued the item one week to allow for the parties to meet and discuss and it is my understanding that a full set of plans was given to the appellant at 5:00 last friday. they reviewed it over the weekend that is when the issue of the survey came to their attention and any questions about the property line, and reality that was before the board tonight is just the permit for the roof deck, and so that, i thought was understood is that there would be supervised plans that were code complying for the roof deck, there were two issues, one the codes were not code complying, and two, given the location of the deck, it is on a non-complying portion of the building and it required under our policy, a ten-day notice to the abuting properties as a notice to the roof deck and that was not done with the review. and we thought that continuing it, hopefully the parties would co
a question mr. sanchez, so when you're looking at the plans you're talking about an area where a roof was added. how is that indicated on the as builts? >> it's shown as a room where the portion -- i can pull the plans. if you're asking about the room at the back that had the roof added to it. let's see if it will fit on the overhead. so it's the room behind the studdie. this had no roof on it and on the plansz they said new built up roof here but there was no other plans or elevations and no indication they're closing this space. >> and by putting a roof on that would that trigger neighbor notification? >> it would require a variance because it's in the rear yard. the required rear yard line is here so this would be in the required rear yard and would trigger a variance. >> okay. thank you very much. >> and just to be clear on the last permit which is on appeal to the board those walls have been removed and the work has been done -- >> i'm sorry. it's been removed at this point? >> yes. the walls here have been removed. >>i think the photos show that there was no roof original
asked of mr. sanchez, the zoning administrator about the no-shows in may and july. >> i went to a hearing in april. he was right about that. we continued it, mr. pollard was there with me with mr. sanchez and mr. pollard said he was going to submit in documentation to the planner and i left at that. i was not aware there was a hearing in may alt all. the first i heard about that was this evening and i was gone. again the problem is staff could have and should have in my mind reached out to the architect. weas my he was my agent. >> thank you, mr. murphy. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for mr. sanchez. when we hear testimony that your agency should have reached out to the applicant, when they don't show up multiple times, would that be your protocol to reach out to the applicant, in this case the architect, rather than the property owner? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. in hearing the jurisdiction requestor's testimony this evening and i think getting a better understanding of the
the only time that happens is when mr. sanchez doing his due diligence and raising things that they are latching on to. but showing up and preparing the brief and coming to the hearing trying to negotiate with them they did notify any problem with the permit so we had no reason to think that this permit could not be upheld. that is the honest answer. >> all right. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sure, i think that he is going to have a chance. >> mr. sanchez, rebuttal, i think that there is a question for you. >> mr. sanchez were you going to speak again. >> i don't have anything further to add. >> i would like to clarify that the permit that has been issued is for a non-code comply apartment roof. ; is that correct?? >> that is correct. it does not comply with the planning code. >> anything further mr. duffy? >> no. okay. >> so commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> so, i will just comment that i am not focused on anything other than the permit at issue which is clearly defective for multiple reasons. and that is the roof deck expansion and for that reason, that reason
and the incentive was that they could avoid a conditional use permit. by doing so. as mr. sanchez will probably tell you he sees no reason that this use needs a conditional use permit, except for the fact that code seems to say and he admits that it is unclear, that there is a conditional use for a active frontage which is not present by virtue of the name of the use. mr. sanchez and his department advised the board of supervisors the language was unclear. unfortunately they did adopt it the way that it is. and we are stuck with a very unclear interpretation. but i ask you to look at the intent of why there is a conditional use permit if you don't have active windows allowing and encouraging the public? as to some of the statements made by mr. williams, first of all, vocal point offers services to the general public and so it can't be administrative services as he alleges in his brief because administratives services by definition offers services to other business and not to members of the public. there is no change of use here. such that section 312, the code required notification. not every change
to the site as mr. sanchez did. could i have the overhead, please, victor? >> okay. so, this is the site here, and there are identical lots in a row. mrs. lam's lot is here and all of the longer lots goes out this way and this is a very long lot here behind. that is my exhibit f. here is our exhibit e. and this shows the decks and the rear yard configuration and here is the subject site here and there is very small decks next door. and so, the misinformation that has been provided to you is across the board. unless we are allowed to expand in this area and build larger decks and configuration, we are going to be deprived of this property. and in fact this property already has by far the largest configuration of deck and rear stairs. and that is what you see, when you take a look at these photos. the applicants say that many immediate neighbors enjoy large decks and some that are larger and enter into the required rear yard tha. is simply untrue there is none out there that have a deck of the size that they are proposing. the information in the applicant's brief is completely incorrect. they h
with it. in discussing with the neighbors and i think i tried to speak with mr. sanchez before about this. there is currently a fence around the rear of the property and we would like to replace that fence. it provides privacy to the neighbors. so they would really like to see that privacy fence replaced. it would be at zoning's discretion and i think it would make them happy. in addition, to the fence we have shown on the drawings, to pull the plaster off the wall at the neighboring property. and insulate and add gypsum board, two layers, to help us. which i know has been an issue to-date. thanks. >> may i? >> i think your time is up. >> i this had one thing that i didn't get in there. the hours of operation of the outside patio for the costa country club, which was capped at 9:00 p.m., my clients the castro country club respectfully request that they be allowed to you use the outdoor space until they are open every night, thank you. >> calling public comment. [ reading speakers' names ] >> hello my name is eden palmer and i live at the building adjacent to the castro country club.
it last year. >> okay >> and that question, for mr. sanchez. >> you can stay up there when you are done because you have your rebuttal time as well. >> are these the same plans, identically that were approved in 2008. >> yes, it is my understanding that the plans did not change and the architect can confirm that. but the approved permit from 2008 stated that it was a two story auto repair facility. and it is just filed the same plans to renew and to hopefully start construction. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so, on the rebuttal. just a few points. i think that going to the question of neighborhood character, no doubt that further down the street, it will be rezoned to residential, however, this is not and will not be located within the residential zoning district. two doors down does not make you within the zoning district. and i think that if we just study the aerial photo she is are by and large industrial uses that are perfect for within the sli zoning district. and so, just studying the photo there and also getting to the question of the size of the deck on the low work building, t
. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening president hwang, members of the board. scott sanchez planning department and this is located in a dwelling district and two maximum units are allowed and listed as a two unit building so they're not able to legalize a third unit. i would note since the inspector mentioned the work had been there for quite some time while the san born property shows for two also and r3 and the dwelling unit for the lot area so it's conceivable prior to that time they could have had three dwelling units on the property so that is information i wanted to share, but currently legally we couldn't legalize a third unit at the property. i am available for any questions. >> is there any public comment? >> good evening board. jerry brown. i am actually the agent for the project -- >> mr. brown your time is under the time allotted the requester. >> sorry about that. >> that's okay. any other public comment? okay commissioners the matter is submitted. >> well, commissioners i would allow them to have their say here and allow us t
the planning department now mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez the planning department. so the subject property at 264 dore street is located with the sli lighting industrial district and the appellant's property is the property behind that on tenth street would note that the zoning district prohibts dwelling units and has since 1990, meant to encourage industrial usage, so it is not a dwelling unit, it is a live-work building. the subject property is to build a two-story auto repair facility and i would note that in 2007, they submitted a building permit to authorize the exact same project a full two story building, that underwent the neighborhood notification between march and april of 2008 and there was no discretion requests and it was issued in august of 2008, due to the down turn they did not pursue the project, when they wanted to come back to the department in 2001, to pursue the project it has been more than three years since the last neighborhood notice we must do a new neighborhood notification, so they filed for the new permit in january of last year, and underwent the neig
they will not find the permit without the inspection submitted. >> okay, thank you. >> all right. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department. i will be brief. just note that this is another project that has multiple permits, there were five permits that were issued for the property in 2012. and there are issues with the permit and that they are not code complying. the expansion of the storage area, that was shown as the existing condition on the earlier permit. that would require section of the neighborhood notification and also the size of the stairs that they have in the rear area is encroaching into the yard and would require a variance. that side before the hearing, to speak with him and would not require a notification and not require a variance and corrected the issues with the ground floor rooms on the earlier plans it showed two full bathrooms and a laundry room even though the floor above also had laundry and the plans that he showed were much more simple and complied with all planning cold requirements and that is all that i have to comment on. >> what was the
moral and i am the architect for the project. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez the planning department. so the public property is located at 2529-2533 post street with a three unit residential zoning district and it is a rear yard variance to allow the reconstruction and expansion of the deck and stairs, it will be relocated abuting the appellant's property. that subject property was built in 1890 that is planning to the planning code or any rear yard requirement and under the current planning code it encroaches into the required rear yard given the age of the building it was listed as a historic resource and a survey that does feature a substantial front set back, 14 feet from the front property line and the lot is wider than typical. 27 and a half feet wide and longer than typical, 110 feet or so in depth. but in the pattern in this neighborhood is actually for the wider lot the 27 and a half foot wide lot but actually with a longer depth. so the appellant's property is 137 and a half feet deep and their building extends almost the full depth of this property
you. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. sanchez, how many people are allowed to gather on the deck based on structural? >> i do not have the expertise to answer that. it's a building code requirement and perhaps the architect could answer what the load is? >> people quietly conversing is one thing, but with 20 people hollering, that is a different thing. i don't know the country club well enough, but i know as i said earlier, at night noise really amplifis. >> commissioner antonini. >> the project sponsor, i want to ask you something. i realizing that the purpose of the restaurant is to help make the castro country club economically feasible. >> that is correct. >> and i would assume that either option a or b will work economically for you? >> i think if you were to ask my client, who regrettably couldn't be here tonight, he would ask for option b because it gives him the extra simple linear feet. it doesn't really make any difference, i think, for you, because i don't think there is any outdoor perception of difference, whether that cavity is 6' bigger or not, but we'll leave it
sugaya. >> yes, a question for mr. sanchez. when you were referencing the section on the signs and you referred that -- i mean, that section then referred to the administrative code on discretionary review, can you explain what that relationship or what that implies or why it's set up that way? >> so, when we're working on the dr, i think you're familiar with 1954 memo from the office of the city attorney. >> um-hm. >> and that cited the discretionary authority that all bodies have in the city and county of san francisco and that is in the admin code. that is where this commission derives its discretionary review authority powers. so, when you hear a dr and a building permit application you're relying on that section. it's the same section that the board of appeals relies upon when they are hearing a building permit as well. so, that's saying that you do not have the ability to exercise discretion, that you are authorized -- otherwise authorized. obviously that comes around because of concerns with first amendment issues and that's why it was added. i think it was added in the '60s, i
indeed, zephyr realty is involved. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. i will be brief and wanted to note we reviewed the most community revised plans were submitted to the board of appeals on january 10, 2013. the date on the revision set is january 7th,2013 and these comply with the planning code and i'm available. >> i'm sorry they do comply? >> they do comply. that is correct. thank you. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner i reviewed the drawings and they reflect what i remember of the proposed changes at that point in time and i'm prepared to move to uphold the permit and condition it on the documentation that has been provided to reflect the changes. is that the appropriate -- >> it sounds like what you want to do is grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that it is revised, to reflect the changes. and i would ask just that plan set be noted by date. submitted to the board, which is january 10, 2013. >> okay. so moved. >> i'm inclined to move in that
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 86 (some duplicates have been removed)